Improvement Ideas for Toronto's Lamport Stadium

[Marty Funkhouser]

12 hours ago, Big Picture said:

2 stands, 16 rows each is 32 rows between them.  9600 divided by 32 is 300 per row, or one person per metre of field, so yes 9600 would fit in that stadium not allowing for the 1000 or so in the beer garden, even if only just.

1 person per metre of field you say...and 16 rows per block each side...sounds about right.

The stands clearly run the length of the field and no more...that's 100 metres rather than 300 metres by the way... with 5 gangways of around a metre or so...There are 32 rows in total you state.

Would you like to run that through...??? 

[Cdd]

I count 20 rows in each stand.

40 rows in total. 9,600/40 = 240.

That means 240 people on each row which runs longer than the length of the pitch and that doesn’t include the many stood in the beer garden or hospitality areas.

Add to the fact that 9,600 is the fire regulation capacity of the stadium, or probably could hold more.

Why aren’t other teams crowds subject to the same level of scrutiny that Toronto are?

Clearly it’s jealously, because most of the time it’s from fans of smaller clubs who are worried that Toronto will overtake them in rugby leagues pecking order. Or it’s fans who clearly have an agenda against expansion. 

[GUBRATS]

All depends how fat the average Canadian is ? , If they're like the Yanks those ' calcs ' bring the capacity to 600

[PatrickB]

On 05/05/2019 at 08:39, Mr Plow said:

Yeah not really much room behind the sticks, unless they build on the car park 

Pretty amazing how much change in this city in a few short years. There are now about 3000 condo units where all that dirt is on the north.

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 hours ago, Cdd said:

 

Add to the fact that 9,600 is the fire regulation capacity of the stadium, or probably could hold more.

Why aren’t other teams crowds subject to the same level of scrutiny that Toronto are?

Clearly it’s jealously, because most of the time it’s from fans of smaller clubs who are worried that Toronto will overtake them in rugby leagues pecking order. Or it’s fans who clearly have an agenda against expansion. 

Rugby league fans are obsessed with crowd figures, not just Toronto's any match. Usually moaning how low it is, they always claim RU crowds are plucked out of thin air. So I would get used to it because if you ever get 20k they would never believe it and would claim that all tickets were free. Its just how they are .

[Gav Wilson]

15 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

 

Not anti-Toronto in any way by a long stretch but any rational intelligent human being who thinks that it is possible to fit 9600 into  those 12 blocks of 320-500 maximum is not a rational intelligent human being...

Jesus H Christ.

[deluded pom?]

2 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

All depends how fat the average Canadian is ? , If they're like the Yanks those ' calcs ' bring the capacity to 600

The old Wembley had a lower capacity for the Challenge Cup Final than the FA Cup Final because northern RL fans were deemed to be bigger than their football loving counterparts, allegedly. 

[deluded pom?]

22 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Jesus H Christ.

On a bike.

[GUBRATS]

1 hour ago, PatrickB said:

Pretty amazing how much change in this city in a few short years. There are now about 3000 condo units where all that dirt is on the north.

Do they pay to watch the game ? , And are they included in the 9,600 ?

[Marty Funkhouser]

30 minutes ago, Gav Wilson said:

Jesus H Christ.

Eh...it's pretty simple, there are either 32 or 40 100 metre  strips of concrete that is is claimed to sit 9600 people...the international fire code minimum  legal requirement for stadiums (for proper fixed seating) is 457 mm per seat...even if we allow that it's not proper seating 2 people per metre is ludicrous and would only give a maximum of , if 40 rows (less the gangways), less than 8000...and that's a maximum and highly unlikely.

Given that Mr Argyle declared a crowd of 9600 (full capacity) when at best, at very very best and at a stretch, the stadium was 3/4 full then there are some large porkies been told, that do not bear any scrutiny whatsoever and raise doubts as to the integrity of the club and sport, whilst raising various issues should they get up and/or should they ever host a big game that is likely to test the "capacity" or the required selling or issuing of 9600 tickets. Just because they are Toronto doesn't mean they can play fast and loose with legalities and the truth. I am sure people don't need reminding of how mis-representing capacity has caused issues in this country.

Why nobody gets that I don't know, I really couldn't give a monkeys what Toronto actually get or declare or what money they really take through the gate but there should be some standards adhered to by any and all clubs. If the proper standards are applied when they get in SL and if they stay at Lamport  then no doubt the "capacity" will be revised.

 

 

 

[westside]

The city of Toronto is lying about the capacity too. How deep does this conspiracy go? Are the masons involved?

[bobbruce]

12 minutes ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Eh...it's pretty simple, there are either 32 or 40 100 metre  strips of concrete that is is claimed to sit 9600 people...the international fire code minimum  legal requirement for stadiums (for proper fixed seating) is 457 mm per seat...even if we allow that it's not proper seating 2 people per metre is ludicrous and would only give a maximum of , if 40 rows (less the gangways), less than 8000...and that's a maximum and highly unlikely.

Given that Mr Argyle declared a crowd of 9600 (full capacity) when at best, at very very best and at a stretch, the stadium was 3/4 full then there are some large porkies been told, that do not bear any scrutiny whatsoever and raise doubts as to the integrity of the club and sport, whilst raising various issues should they get up and/or should they ever host a big game that is likely to test the "capacity" or the required selling or issuing of 9600 tickets. Just because they are Toronto doesn't mean they can play fast and loose with legalities and the truth. I am sure people don't need reminding of how mis-representing capacity has caused issues in this country.

Why nobody gets that I don't know, I really couldn't give a monkeys what Toronto actually get or declare or what money they really take through the gate but there should be some standards adhered to by any and all clubs. If the proper standards are applied when they get in SL and if they stay at Lamport  then no doubt the "capacity" will be revised.

 

 

 

It isn’t claimed it sits 9600

[Uvam Acerbam]

On 05/05/2019 at 09:44, Damien said:

I understand that the council wouldn't be open to selling the entire ground, as it's a community facility, but is it not possible for the Wolfpack to pay for upgrades and buy a share of the stadium, like 50%?

 

On 05/05/2019 at 09:56, TboneFromTO said:

Fair point. Ontario is "open for business" now

TWP can't buy into the stadium. They might strike a deal as TFC has done for best access, but it would mean that TWP would have to make all the improvements.

Ontario does not own the land. The land is owned by the Feds and the province is the caretaker, city built Lamport and uses it. Therefore redevelopment would be almost impossible. 

[Uvam Acerbam]

On 05/05/2019 at 09:29, Smudger06 said:

Indeed, looks like they are going to outgrow Lamport by the time they are in SL so surely further BMO Field discussions must be on the table. 

 

On 05/05/2019 at 10:10, John WP Fan said:

The parking lot brings in revenue, and there is also a temporary homeless shelter built on it (taking up 75 of the parking spots); I think that will  be there for a few years. I have no idea how the city would feel about using up some of the surrounding space. I think the bigger obstacle is money. The Wolfpack (and I guess the Toronto Arrows of the MLR if I am allowed to mention another sport here) would be the major beneficiaries of most of the expansion/improvement ideas, so the city would likely expect those parties to pay for most of the work.

Toronto FC had a similar deal with the city for the improvements to BMO Field, and now they seem to control that stadium.

 

 

On 05/05/2019 at 11:40, RobertAM said:

Scheduling might be worked out between all the users here but then we have to get the SL to cooperate and it has been, shall we say, something of an issue with the RFL can we expect SL teams to be any easier to deal with??

Beergarden sacrosanct - if BMO won't play ball what then??  Food any better at BMO?  those cheesie dogs at Lamport really put me off and I love my grub!

BMO is never going to happen. Unless MLSE buys the team. MLSE owns the TFC, Argos and has a long term lease on BMO. TWP would always be the red-headed step-child. Since SL is a weekend sport we would have to play Sat/Sun for 13/16 weeks between Mar and Sept. The TFC will not allow the Argos to play at BMO less than 48hrs before their match. CFL games are Fri-Sun, June to Nov. BMO would never let TWP and Argos play the same weekend. Do the maths.

Beer sales are owned by BMO/MLSE, they will never give up those rights.

Best we stay at LS and make improvements if and when they become viable.

[PatrickB]

1 hour ago, westside said:

The city of Toronto is lying about the capacity too. How deep does this conspiracy go? Are the masons involved?

The City of Toronto on their website says Lamport stadium seating capacity is 9600.

https://www.toronto.ca/data/parks/prd/facilities/complex/314/index.html

That would not include people standing in the beer garden on the north or the VIP area in the south although I don't know if more than 9600 are permitted to enter, based on capacity and fire regulations.

The website has not been updated since Toronto Wolfpack started using the field, as it does not mention rugby or rugby league as a stadium purpose. Hence the 9600 capacity was established before the Wolfpack were even around.

These conspiracy theory nutjobs that claim it doesn't hold 9600 should take up their argument with the city. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

[henage]

2 hours ago, deluded pom? said:

On a bike.

in the front row

[westside]

1 hour ago, PatrickB said:

The City of Toronto on their website says Lamport stadium seating capacity is 9600.

https://www.toronto.ca/data/parks/prd/facilities/complex/314/index.html

That would not include people standing in the beer garden on the north or the VIP area in the south although I don't know if more than 9600 are permitted to enter, based on capacity and fire regulations.

The website has not been updated since Toronto Wolfpack started using the field, as it does not mention rugby or rugby league as a stadium purpose. Hence the 9600 capacity was established before the Wolfpack were even around.

These conspiracy theory nutjobs that claim it doesn't hold 9600 should take up their argument with the city. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.

I’m not sure Pat. Maybe we should see what Parksider’s satellite photo analysis says about it first.

[Uvam Acerbam]

2 hours ago, westside said:

I’m not sure Pat. Maybe we should see what Parksider’s satellite photo analysis says about it first.

I'm pretty sure that the beer garden crowd would not be separate from the 9600. The capacity would have to be seat-holders. Therefore anyone in the BG would have a seat in the stands. Hence the bare corners in a crowd of 9562.

[Kayakman]

I like the floating roof idea with an extra set of stands above and sort of 1/2 behind the others (corporate boxes there); have a new area covering the floor level under 1/2 of the new stand for new washrooms, food court etc. plus a small wrap around stand on the south end.  Could put 15-18 000 thousand in there max.

[Kayakman]

5 hours ago, Marty Funkhouser said:

Eh...it's pretty simple, there are either 32 or 40 100 metre  strips of concrete that is is claimed to sit 9600 people...the international fire code minimum  legal requirement for stadiums (for proper fixed seating) is 457 mm per seat...even if we allow that it's not proper seating 2 people per metre is ludicrous and would only give a maximum of , if 40 rows (less the gangways), less than 8000...and that's a maximum and highly unlikely.

Given that Mr Argyle declared a crowd of 9600 (full capacity) when at best, at very very best and at a stretch, the stadium was 3/4 full then there are some large porkies been told, that do not bear any scrutiny whatsoever and raise doubts as to the integrity of the club and sport, whilst raising various issues should they get up and/or should they ever host a big game that is likely to test the "capacity" or the required selling or issuing of 9600 tickets. Just because they are Toronto doesn't mean they can play fast and loose with legalities and the truth. I am sure people don't need reminding of how mis-representing capacity has caused issues in this country.

Why nobody gets that I don't know, I really couldn't give a monkeys what Toronto actually get or declare or what money they really take through the gate but there should be some standards adhered to by any and all clubs. If the proper standards are applied when they get in SL and if they stay at Lamport  then no doubt the "capacity" will be revised.

 

 

 

You are not all there...did you fail grade 4 math Jethro?

Toronto has not misrepresented anything!..its a conspiracy theory...some call it an urban myth...the delusional Naysayers are behind it...best hit the books to figure out that ciphering  Jethro.

[GUBRATS]

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I like the floating roof idea with an extra set of stands above and sort of 1/2 behind the others (corporate boxes there); have a new area covering the floor level under 1/2 of the new stand for new washrooms, food court etc. plus a small wrap around stand on the south end.  Could put 15-18 000 thousand in there max.

 

6 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I like the floating roof idea with an extra set of stands above and sort of 1/2 behind the others (corporate boxes there); have a new area covering the floor level under 1/2 of the new stand for new washrooms, food court etc. plus a small wrap around stand on the south end.  Could put 15-18 000 thousand in there max.

I don't think you understand the ' floating roof ' concept Kman ? , It means it has its own supports seperate from the stand below it , it supports its own weight but not normally anything more , it is a steel only structure , it has been suggested because the concrete stands at Lamport are very basic and don't look like they could be built on 

Another small stand at the car park end incorporating some hospitality plus anything else in short supply ( toilets and permanent food sales ) could probably take the capacity to 11K and still keep some parking sounds like the best option 

[Kayakman]

7 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

 

I don't think you understand the ' floating roof ' concept Kman ? , It means it has its own supports seperate from the stand below it , it supports its own weight but not normally anything more , it is a steel only structure , it has been suggested because the concrete stands at Lamport are very basic and don't look like they could be built on 

Another small stand at the car park end incorporating some hospitality plus anything else in short supply ( toilets and permanent food sales ) could probably take the capacity to 11K and still keep some parking sounds like the best option 

Basic concrete structures are, like a Canadian Bushman, strong not weak.  Who says the structure can't be built on????....place is like a WW 2 bunker complex.

The new upper half tier could have its own independent side braces/supports and various posts attached lengthwise onto the Lamport structure proper (I'm sure the footing could handle it).  The end supports could also then be utilized to support the floating roof.  it would look sharp!

It would feel like the crowd was right on top of you.

[PatrickB]

27 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

 

I don't think you understand the ' floating roof ' concept Kman ? , It means it has its own supports seperate from the stand below it , it supports its own weight but not normally anything more , it is a steel only structure , it has been suggested because the concrete stands at Lamport are very basic and don't look like they could be built on 

Another small stand at the car park end incorporating some hospitality plus anything else in short supply ( toilets and permanent food sales ) could probably take the capacity to 11K and still keep some parking sounds like the best option 

I wouldn't have known what a floating roof was. Thanks.

One thing people must remember is a roof over here has to be able to support the weight of a *&^%load of snow. Because of that they tend to be pretty major undertakings.

I guess if they built it on a steep enough angle, that would help.

[GUBRATS]

7 minutes ago, PatrickB said:

I wouldn't have known what a floating roof was. Thanks.

One think people must remember is a roof over here has to be able to support the weight of a *&^%load of snow. Because of that they tend to be pretty major undertakings.

I guess if they built it on a steep enough angle, that would help.

If you look at Micheal 1812s pictures , those are floating roofs at BMO , retro built essentially unconnected to the stands using ' bannana beams ' to carry the weight 

[TIWIT]

8 hours ago, GUBRATS said:

Do they pay to watch the game ? , And are they included in the 9,600 ?

Hardly. They complain about the noise and the lights and the general inconvenience of having a stadium just across the road, having not noticed it there when they bought their condo.